Shigeru Miyamoto - "3D is the future of gaming"

[j.m.ratkos]

the one thing that the 3DS has going for it (top screen) is the fact that the dot pitch has been drastically reduced (or is it "increased" where you have a higher resolution on the same size display) when the games are run in 2D mode.

like the psp go and my new laptop (a 15.5" display sporting 1080p), its amazing the level of clarity this brings to the table. I wish that they had doubled the resolution on the bottom display so that newer 3DS specific titles could look that much better all around (while still being able to scale up the display like the game boy advance did with the original game boy and game boy colour titles).

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

I don't think that's true though, as the lenticular display will always be in effect, the only thing that changes when going from 3D to 2D is that the offset between the two viewpoints is blended closer together until they eventually overlap and therefore lose their sense of depth. But effectively this means the resolution is still halved because half the pixels are sent to your left eye and the other half to your right eye, dividing the perceived resolution in half. So I don't believe for a second that going from 3D to 2D will increase the visible resolution, it just sends two separate but identical pictures to your left and right eye.

[Meers]

Gimme 4k resolution on a big screen, fuck 3d, I want so much detail it makes my eyes bleed.

Aren't they already working on 'super-HD' resolutions? Something like 5000x3000 pixels, I've read somewhere.

[Dimahoo]

Tis done, just not really viable for the home. Yet.

It would need a pretty monster spec console though - i doubt a next gen machine could do anything. I mean, yeah you MIGHT get a display but you'd still be limited to 8 cars

[j.m.ratkos]

I don't think that's true though, as the lenticular display will always be in effect, the only thing that changes when going from 3D to 2D is that the offset between the two viewpoints is blended closer together until they eventually overlap and therefore lose their sense of depth. But effectively this means the resolution is still halved because half the pixels are sent to your left eye and the other half to your right eye, dividing the perceived resolution in half. So I don't believe for a second that going from 3D to 2D will increase the visible resolution, it just sends two separate but identical pictures to your left and right eye.

I could have sworn that I read somewhere that if the developers programmed for 2D specifically (3D turned off completely), that they had the entire 800x240 available as the display type (and not 400x240 for each eye based on the lenticular display), but I can't for the life of me find anything right now to that effect.

here's the official spec sheet from nintendo (but it doesn't state anything about 2D mode)

http://www.nintendo.com/3ds/hardware/specs

even if I'm incorrect, the point that I was attempting to make is that the tighter the dot pitch of the display (eg. the higher the resolution for a set display size), the better that the image can be.

case and point: sony's psp go. it's 3.8" display boasts the same 480x272 pixel resolution as the psp-1000/2000 and 3000's 4.3" displays, resulting in what appears to be a higher definition image.

[Dimahoo]

Indeed. Same amount of pixels in a smaller display.

[hash ampersand]

3D will probably be touted as a gimmick, until someone invents some sort of gameplay mechanic or genre of game that is genuinely improved by the arrival of stereoscopic 3D and requires it to play. It'll be a shame if it is a passing fad, and becomes overused to the point of cliche, like lens flare or unnecessary stealth sections in games.

I'd love to play picross 3d in true 3D though. And bloody Kula World.

Where will it stop?

Chuckie Egg 3D?

[Venice Cull]

Not really, as we lose our ability to perceive distance full stop after several hundred metres anyway.

Yeah, when I was up a mountain in Banff looking out at the Rockies it looked exactly like someone had placed a huge mile high photograph of mountains and a skyline off in the distance and wrapped 360 degrees around me. Exactly like a film set or something - it completely baffled me.

[b00dles]

Bullet Hell shmups could be easily improved with the depth of 3D but just in a way that you'd have to dodge bullets on the z axis as well as x and y.

Also little things like Paper Mario's going into the background effects would work much better and be clearer in 'proper' 3D.

[Alex W.]

Distance is often faked too, such as the wraparound skyboxes or tiny model villages meant to represent far away objects. Vistas like this:

Would cease to work, wouldn't they?

Modern games ditched 2D skyboxes for a 3D, perspective-corrected skybox which acts like a miniature set contained in a hidden part of the level and seamlessly pasted into the backdrop where the sky should go. See HL2 for example (Episode 1 has a commentary item on this, IIRC.) So doing proper depth on that is entirely possible (you'd just need to perspective-correct two viewpoints instead of one).

(I think you understand the principle - my point is that you can fudge the perspective for 3D just as much as you have to for it to work in the first place.)

[NecroMorrius]

Cool, thanks.

[hash ampersand]

Bullet Hell shmups could be easily improved with the depth of 3D but just in a way that you'd have to dodge bullets on the z axis as well as x and y.

Also little things like Paper Mario's going into the background effects would work much better and be clearer in 'proper' 3D.

But how would you make z axis control fine enough to deal with the precision needed for bullet hell shooters? Or do you think it would be organised into different planes of action, and you switch between them?

[NecroMorrius]

Aren't they already working on 'super-HD' resolutions? Something like 5000x3000 pixels, I've read somewhere.

.

[Massive Invisible Dog]

But how would you make z axis control fine enough to deal with the precision needed for bullet hell shooters? Or do you think it would be organised into different planes of action, and you switch between them?

Stick to control movement on one plane, touch screen for another.

[Spacehost]

But how would you make z axis control fine enough to deal with the precision needed for bullet hell shooters? Or do you think it would be organised into different planes of action, and you switch between them?

I've been wondering why Nintendo didn't implement some kind of 3D stylus with this TBH. Just use some rechargable IR stylus and a couple of low-res cameras on either side of the top lid and you could track the depth of the end of the pen accurately enough to do some very fun things in 3D.

[freezycold]

I don't think that's true though, as the lenticular display will always be in effect, the only thing that changes when going from 3D to 2D is that the offset between the two viewpoints is blended closer together until they eventually overlap and therefore lose their sense of depth. But effectively this means the resolution is still halved because half the pixels are sent to your left eye and the other half to your right eye, dividing the perceived resolution in half. So I don't believe for a second that going from 3D to 2D will increase the visible resolution, it just sends two separate but identical pictures to your left and right eye.

It seemed to me like when I brought the 3D slider all the way down that half the pixels just switched off and the barrier stopped directing images to the eye separately. The screen would flash off for a second and then look very different when the image returned, like the shimmery parallax had been removed. There didn't seem to be any increase in horizontal resolution.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

The shimmery parallax would appear to be gone because you no longer get two different images.

Note that I don't know this for a fact, I just suspect this to work like that based on the stuff I've read about the technology and my own experience a couple of years ago with developing content for prototype glasses-free Philips 3D screens.

[freezycold]

I dunno, it really seemed like the screen switched modes and was no longer using the barrier when the slider was all the way down.

[NecroMorrius]

Yes, the screen does switch rendering mode when you turn the 3D off.

This is why some games (DOA for example) double in framerate when you reach that magic 0% on the 3D slider.

[RubberJohnny]

SSIV too.

[Massive Invisible Dog]

SSFIV actually requires you to turn the 3D off in game for the framerate to increase, moving the slider to zero alone won't do it. Once you disable it in game, the slider does nothing.

[NecroMorrius]

OK, but the point still stands.

[mushashi]

Gimme 4k resolution on a big screen, fuck 3d, I want so much detail it makes my eyes bleed.

Can't we have both?, with no glasses required too

Looks like we can:

How much game budgets would have to balloon to actually take advantage of 4K is another matter entirely.

[Don Wiskerando]

I don't mind 3D in films if done well but in games? I'll buy a 3DS when/if Treasure put Guardian Heroes on it.

[NecroMorrius]

How much game budgets would have to balloon to actually take advantage of 4K is another matter entirely.

Paging Rubberjohnny to the thread!

Also, that bullet hell thing with different 3D layers? That sounds cool. If it works well it stomps on some of my previous points. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[Dimahoo]

Okay i'm going to be dumb. What costs more when you go HD?

I only ask because what needs to be upgraded to take avantage of it from a dev's perspective.

[mushashi]

Paging Rubberjohnny to the thread

Well it's a trufax

3DS dev costs are higher than DS dev costs, PS3 higher than PS2 higher than PS1. If you want the level of detail to take advantage of 4K resolution, your going to need more artists (unless we're hoping some bright spark is finally going to get around to making a practical procedural asset generator soon to make all those artists redundant, followed by AI self generating code, followed by the enslavement of the human race as we welcome our new SKYNET overlord )

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

More detailed geometry and textures, which could imply higher costs.

Although this is not necessarily the case, as often it's making models and textures efficient while looking good is where the challenge lies rather than bumping up the amount of polys. Another solution is using generators like SpeedTree or reuse models or use stock models.

[NecroMorrius]

Not to mention the crazy hardware you'd need to run games at such an insane resolution.

We're talking about taking five or six or Layte's PC and sellotaping them together.

[88h88]

Aren't they already working on 'super-HD' resolutions? Something like 5000x3000 pixels, I've read somewhere.

It's possible to output ridiculous resolutions such as the ones the Red Epic lines of digital cameras are pulling down like the 617...

Epic 617 resolution: 28,000 × 9,334 (28k)

GIVE ME!